The RTI Act does not mandate disclosure of information beyond defined guidelines, and adequate information was provided regarding cheque validity.

O R D E R

1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 12.12.2022 seeking information on the following points:

(i) Please provide exact language for validity of Bank cheque as it is written Three Month, but my cheque has been dishonored on account of outdated/stale when it was valid technically/theoretically/genuinely as per three month. Cheque no. 684175 was deposited on 28/11/2022 at SBI Nanakheda UJJAIN bearing issue date 29/08/2022. My complaint to SBI has been disposed off stating that as per bank norms validity is 90 days. Please provide authentic copy of norms whether validity is three months or 90 days, I could have deposited my cheque 2/3 days earlier in case of validity of 90 days. If as per bank norms three months are 90 days, then please provide information for one year in terms of days whether it is 365 or 360 days only as per bank norms. Please provide exact date till a cheque will not be stale as per bank norms if issuing date is 15/02/2023. Please provide information for how many cheque has been dishonored on this account only and total charges have been collected so far, since validity of cheque has been changed from SIX to THREE months 01/04/2012. Please provide copy of rules/norms/guidelines which are publicly displayed by bank for validity of 90 days.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 10.01.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-

Guideline and policy is respect of validation of instruments (cheques/drafts/pay orders/banker’s cheques) is as under:

“In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, Reserve Bank had directed that with effect from April 1, 2012, banks should not make payment of cheques/drafts/pay orders/banker’s cheques bearing that date of any subsequent date, if they are presented beyond the period of three months from the date of such instrument.”

Seeking other information/explanation is not covered under the definition of information u/s 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated Nil alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 16.02.2023 stated that:

I direct the CPIO to provide the amount and total numbers of such cheque, if the data is readily available for the branch where the appellant hold the account, in case no such data is available then the same may be informed to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of this order.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated 02.05.2023.

5. The Complainant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Vijay Nath Mishra, Regional Manager and CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that Guideline and policy is respect of validation of instruments (cheques/drafts/pay orders/banker’s cheques) has been furnished to the Complainant, as available on record. Further seeking other explanations is not covered under the definition of information u/s 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005. 7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of records, notes that the instant matter is a Complaint under the RTI Act where no further direction for disclosure of information can be given and it is only required to be ascertained if the information has been denied with a malafide intention or due to an unreasonable cause. On the perusal of the documents on record the Commission observes that no further intervention is required in the matter. Accordingly, the complaint is closed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.